50mm lens?

[apaflo]

Wow.. sort of going for that whole over the top thing on being rude and condescending, are we? Lol

It seems that you are. But please leave me out of it.

 

[robbins.photo]

Wow.. sort of going for that whole over the top thing on being rude and condescending, are we? Lol

It seems that you are. But please leave me out of it.

Rotflmao - so your response basically boils down to, "I know you are but what am I"

Well, easier than actually addressing the subject at hand I suppose. Lol.. if nothing else I got a pretty good chuckle out of it.

I won't belabor the point, but I would ask you to consider the words of Dale Turner - "It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character."

Take it for what you will. Having read some of your previous posts you strike me as a person who has a lot of knowledge and experience to share and when it comes to a lot of the more technical aspects of photography there is probably just loads and loads of stuff that a lot of folks here, including myself, could probably benefit from - so I really hope you'll give this exchange some thought and consider that you get a lot further talking to people, rather than at them. Just my 2 cents worth of course.

 

[JoeW]

As I read Derrel's insight on this issue (prime), his point is not that we should handcuff ourselves as photographers. It's that a prime can teach someone how to see. That does not mean you go through life only being able to see from a 50mm (or 35mm or 75mm or whatever your prime is) perspective. It means that it trains perspective and the ability to clearly visualize what a shot will look like. And that's a very powerful thing. It's the difference between photographers who go around trying to "capture" a picture (and often times failing) vs. photographers who go around creating a picture.

 

[TedBundy]

Thanks for the abundance of replies guys. Appreciate it.

 

[apaflo]

As I read Derrel's insight on this issue (prime), his point is not that we should handcuff ourselves as photographers. It's that a prime can teach someone how to see. That does not mean you go through life only being able to see from a 50mm (or 35mm or 75mm or whatever your prime is) perspective. It means that it trains perspective and the ability to clearly visualize what a shot will look like. And that's a very powerful thing. It's the difference between photographers who go around trying to "capture" a picture (and often times failing) vs. photographers who go around creating a picture.

That understanding is fundamentally flawed though. It does not train a photographer about perspective in a valid or even effective way! (And while we are not talking about going through life seeing perspective only from a single focal length, it does train people to think of perspective with an invalid relationship to focal length rather than the appropriate relationship between perspective and distance.)

Perspective is not an effect of focal length.

Choosing focal length does not achieve a desired perspective. That is a function of relative distance, and regardless of which focal length lens you use it will be the same for a given subject and camera location. Associating perspective with focal length is a mistaken relationship that does not help photographers to be effective and efficient.

When we endevour to "create" a photograph rather than just take another picture it's important to understand the cause and effect of various characteristics we want to incorporate. Doing things in the best order, which can only happen if we understand each step and each task extremely well, means what is done first can produce results that make our job easier at the end. In that respect, one may "take a picture" by choosing a focal length and then finding locations where an interesting bit of perspective is properly framed. But to make photographs you first find the best perspective for the subject (by changing location) and after the precisely best location is selected (and only then) it is time to chose the focal length that appropriately frames the desired image. Practicing that process is the education that works.

 

[astroNikon]

I learned ALOT from my 50mm/1.8 lens.
Depth Of Field (DOF) was not really evident to me looking at photos from my kit lens. UNTIL I bought the 50/1.8 and started doing test shots along a fenceline. WOW, awesome and quick learning.

Then DOF became very obvious, and I started noticing it on my kit lens.
So it taught me how to take a "sharp" photo and what a Sharp photo was, and in focus.
I also played around with my focusing modes, and learned to use Single Focus Mode and moving it around the frame to focus various objects at f/1.8 and seeing the difference in the shot. So it helped me learn my various focusing modes too.

It was a great learning tool. It's a nice prime lens too.

Also, if you buy one used, after you think you've learned all you could, you can probably sell it for the same amount that you bought it for.

But I recommend to use it in addition to your kit lens. The 50mm was my 2nd lens.

 

[Derrel]

It's weird...Nikon makes a couple of 50mm AF lenses; Canon has four models of 50mm AF lenses; Sony offers 50mm AF lenses; Zeiss offers 50mm AF manual focus lenses. Sigma has a spiffy,sexy new 50mm f/1.4 AF lens. Pentax makes a great 50mm AF lens. Leica offers multiple 50mm lenses. Huh.

How weird that multiple manufacturers offer 50mm prime lenses, from economy models like Canon's plastic-fantastic 50/1.8 EF-II up to their high-end 50mm f/1.2 L, as well as Leica's uber-costly 50mm Noctilux. Cosina offers several high-speed 50mm offerings for those who cannot afford genuine Leica 50mm lenses. EVEN IN THIS, the era of the zoom lens, those useless, old-school, garbage, mental crutch 50-millimeter lenses are still being sold by every single camera maker. Wow. We need to start a letter-writing campaign and get this issue resolved!

 

[jaomul]

It is a nice portrait lens on a crop camera

spiderkane by jaomul, on Flickr

And a fullframe

wez by jaomul, on Flickr

and is really good when the light is low

Dubrovnik old town at night by jaomul, on Flickr

but as said above a kit lens is more flexible as a first lens

 

[Gavjenks]

Obviously zoom is better in terms of focal lengths and perspectives, etc. It just COSTS more and WEIGHS more at the same focal lengths. If there were a 10-2000mm f/1.4 lens available for 16 ounces and $500, nobody would ever buy primes, ever.
The point of a prime lens is not to be a prime lens... It's to be able to take sharper/higher image quality photos, with brighter apertures, than you can afford to pay (or afford to carry in weight) at the same focal length with a zoom lens.

The end.




And nobody is going to fundamentally learn anything right or wrong with a prime or a zoom, that's BS. You can learn about perspective either way if you pay attention to your photos at all:
A) Take a prime, and walk back and forth and notice that perspective changes. Ta Da! You've learned the correct rule about perspective.
B) Take a zoom, and frame the same shot at two focal lengths. Ta Da! You've learned the correct rule about perspective.
The only way you learn the wrong rule is if you just hear it from somebody and never bother to test it yourself... Nobody is ever going to learn the wrong rule from actual experience, because by definition, the wrong rule is not what happens in reality, so it's never going to actually BE what you experience in real life...

 

[lennon33x]

Canon has four models of 50mm AF lenses...

50mm f/1.2L, 50mm f/1.4, and 50mm f/1.8 II (what's the last one)?

In response to OPs post, it's a great first lens. Why? Based on anecdotal experience, I started with an 18-55. Yes, it allowed me to zoom and was easier, but the zoom became the crutch. If I wanted a shot, I could just zoom right on in or back right out. It didn't really force me to think about what I was looking at. The 50mm didn't break the bank, was light enough to carry, and is surprisingly sharp (though sharpness is relative). It was much sharper, faster, and in my opinion, easier to work with. The focal length didn't distort my subjects (my go-to lens for portraits is the Rokinon 85mm 1.4, but I digress) as much as the 18-55. I switched to primes, in truth, because of what Derrel was saying about "being able to see the picture before I take it." With the zoom, I'm always guessing. But alas, I no longer use zooms, and my work is much better for it. I can pick a guestimate of a focal length, based on subject, DoF, and FoV, pick a lens, and then get closer or further away.

 

[jaomul]

^^ you have the 4th one in your signature

 

[lennon33x]

^^ you have the 4th one in your signature

*facepalm*

 

[astroNikon]

^^ you have the 4th one in your signature

*facepalm*

remember, he's BEHIND the camera. Not looking at the lens :lmao:

 

[robbins.photo]

^^ you have the 4th one in your signature

*facepalm*

remember, he's BEHIND the camera. Not looking at the lens :lmao:

Your supposed to be behind the camera? Huh. Is that why no matter what I shoot it comes out to be some blurry out of focus selfie where I'm making a weird face? Geez. Again, guys.. I'm forced to point out you could have saved me a lot of time and frustration by putting out a memo. Seriously.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, a 50mm on a crop-body camera gives a short telephoto angle of view.



Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF-II, at f/10. Canon EOS 20D. One flashhead fired through a Lastolite Umbrella Box. This was the first orange soda my kid ever was allowed to have. He was intrigued by its flavor. It was actually MY CAN of soda, and I was working in my garage studio, and he came in, snuck up on my can of pop, and started drinking it. So, I took a shot. This is an uncropped full frame.